In article ,
Happy Hippy wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article ,
Happy Hippy wrote:
PD wrote:
Happy Hippy wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article ,
Happy Hippy wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Happy Hippy wrote:
The only question is
'Whence the spin?'
The answer:
The Universe is spinning.
There is plenty of spinning going on *within* the universe, but the
universe as a whole....
Assuming the inflationary scenario is correct, one would expect any
universal rotation to be extremely small.
Some Papers involving "Rotation of the Universe"
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22ro...%22+site%3AarX
iv
org
Yes, there is lots of spinning in the Universe.
The Universe continues at larger and smaller scales infinitely.
But the scale we are concerned with
is the next up from Black Holes.
Consider the neutron star; collections of electrons
melded to protons fall back into the BH to be spun
back up into plasma, stuff of stars.
What is this Black Hole? It is itself a nucleus
composed of protons and neutrons. It is spin.
No. There are no protons and neutrons on a BH. It is a singularity.
Zero
volume, infinite density.
hahaha
Where did it get its spin?
From the spinning star that collapsed. Conservation of angular
momentum.
Which star was that?
Is there a *preferred* star that collapses and then
becomes the central BH of each galaxy?
After this preferred star collapses then no
more stars collapse to form BHs...ever? Why?
I don't know why you would think that. Just because a galaxy has a Big
Old Black Hole in the core does not mean that there are no other black
holes in the galaxy.
Why wouldn't there be?
That is not a logical reply to the previous post. Is English your second
language?
My English is better than yours, I'll
wager. I'll also bet that I've read at
least twice the books you have.
If you haven't been 'keeping up' with recent
observations, you wouldn't know
that they specifically reported recently
that they *haven't* seen any
BHs *except* at centers of galaxies.
Which I go on to state below.
So why are they only seeing one at
the center of spiral galaxies?
Because they're hard to see?
Hard to see? Yes.
Hard to detect by their effects? No.
Stars are collapsing ALL the time.
But not to black holes; most become brown dwarfs or neutron stars.
So there should be an overwhelming majority
of neutron stars around.
Where are they all?
They're there, but heck, we can't even see all the active stars; what makes
you think we can see all the inactive ones?
Where are all these black holes?
How do you detect one?
You got me.
Exactly. We have to detect them indirectly; by seeing matter falling into one
(the X-rays or gamma rays it emits) or by seeing the perturbations in the
orbit of another star orbiting a black hole. Neither is easy to do from a
distance.
On the other hand, if spiral galaxies
are atoms and ellipticals are molecules
If 2 +2 = 7. Dumb and dumber.
These are the ideas I explore in my
page. I provide the link lots.
Link lots? Yeah, your English is sooooo good.
You click on the different-colored
letters. That should be of help to you.
No thanks; I read enough nonsense with the crap newedana posts.
the former will have one at the center
and the latter more than one.
John
Galaxy Model for the Atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/